Sub menu

A LiberalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Guide To State Propositions

Proposition 83: Vote No
WeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve got some pretty stiff sex-offender laws in CaliforniaÃ¢â‚¬â€many of which were signed by Governor Schwarzenegger very recently.

The new state laws strengthen all sentences for child rape to 25-years-to-life, elevate possession of child pornography from a misdemeanor to a felony and extend parole for violent sex felons to 10 years. Proposition 83 contains many of these same provisions.

83 would require sexual predators to live outside of a 2,000 feet radius of schools or parks. Not a bad ideaÃ¢â‚¬â€but a vague one. Who would this apply to? The newly convicted? Is it retroactive? Backers of the proposition claim that legislation can easily be added to clarify the law with a two-thirds vote. ShouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t we get it right the first time?

Current funding for natural resources and environmental protection programs is low. In fact, funding for resources makes up less than 1% of the overall state budget. This measure will make sure Californians have access to safe drinking water, better protection from floods and opportunities to enjoy parks, natural landscapes and our rivers, beaches, bays, and coastline.

Taxing unpopular groups that lack political clout is not fair. Proposition 86 would raise the average cost of a pack of cigarettes from $4 to $6. And this extra tax falls disproportionately on CaliforniaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s poor and ethnic minorities.

I like the argument that higher cigarette prices would dissuade Californians from ever starting the dirty habit, but 86 is about using the initiative process to take money from 15% of the Californians and giving it to special interests.

California has the nationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s worst air quality, the nationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s highest gas prices, and we are dependent on oil that is imported from unstable nations. Voting YES on 87 will help to free us from the foreign oil, and will help transition California into using more domestic energy sources like biofuels, wind, and solar.

(Oil Companies are spending $50 million to kill this proposition because it includes a tax on their profits)

But this proposition has some flaws that make it unacceptable. First off, the money comes from a property tax, which is a regressive tax; everyone pays the same amount regardless of income or wealth.

Second, thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no guarantee that the money raised in Orange County will come back to Orange County. The money goes to the legislature, and thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s very little chance that the money raised will be enough to do any of the good things supporters promise.

Together we can stop political corruption. The passage of 89 would start to restore the sanity in political spending. It will ban contributions to candidates by lobbyists and contractors, restrict contributions by corporations, unions, and individuals to candidates and to outside groups running negative ads, and allow candidates that reject contributions from big money donors to use public grants.

While I have my doubts about basing funding to cover unfunded medical care costs with a tax on tobacco (I think universal health care is the way to deal with that), I believe the proposal to increase the cost of a pack of cigarettes to be a significant deterrent to young people starting smoking in the first place.

The fact that the funds will provide a significant boost to tobacco use prevention and cessation programs makes Prop 86 a good idea.